The Editor of the London Magazine thinks it necessary to publish a Statement of what has
recently taken place between himself and Mr. John Gibson
Lockhart, of Edinburgh, an understood, though unavowed, Conductor of Blackwood’s Magazine.
In so doing, the Editor will speak in his real name,—the matter being one that concerns
his personal character.

On Wednesday, the 10th of January, Mr. Scott
was waited upon by a gentleman, who, giving his name,
said he was commissioned by Mr. John Gibson Lockhart, to
inquire whether Mr. Scott considered. himself responsible for a series of
three Articles, which had appeared in the London Magazine, discussing the conduct and management of
Blackwood’s
Magazine, and regarded by Mr. Lockhart as offensive to his
feelings, and injurious to his honour? Mr. Scott demanded on what grounds
Mr. Lockhart made this application to him? It was
replied,—merely on the strength of the common public report, representing Mr.
Scott to he Editor of Messieurs Baldwin’s Monthly Publication: it was
added, that if he (Mr. S.) disavowed the responsibility now inquired into, his denial would be
considered satisfactory.

Mr. Scott said, that, in the course of a couple of hours,
Mr. Lockhart’s friend should have a reply to
his question. Before that space of time had elapsed, Mr. Scott addressed a
note to the gentleman who had waited upon him, informing him, that if Mr. Lockhart’s motives in putting the inquiry should
turn out to be such as gentlemen usually respect, there would be no difficulty experienced
about giving it an explicit answer.

Mr. Lockhart’s friend, at another interview with
Mr. Scott, on the same day (Wednesday), declared, that
Mr. Lockhart had no legal proceedings in
view,—or, at least, that nothing which Mr. Scott might then admit
should be taken advantage of, with reference to legal proceedings: Mr.
Lockhart’s object was to receive a public apology for matter which he
considered personally offensive to himself,—or such other satisfaction as a gentleman was
entitled to. Mr. Scott said, that it only then remained for him to ask,
whether Mr. Lockhart was on the spot; and whether, in the event of
Mr. Scott’s being prepared to avow the relation in which he
stood towards the London
Magazine, Mr. Lockhart might he considered equally
prepared to declare distinctly the nature of his connection with Blackwood’s Magazine? It was
replied, that Mr. Lockhart was not in London, but in Edinburgh; that he
had merely given directions by letter, that the inquiry above stated

2

should
be put to Mr. Scott; and that he had expressly instructed his friend, that
no preliminary explanation whatever, was to be expected from him. Mr.
Scott answered, that he certainly expected to receive preliminary explanation
from Mr. Lockhart, before he could pay any attention to his claim now
preferred; or consider him as having proved his motives to be worthy of respect: and
Mr. Scott justified his expectation chiefly on the following
ground:—

The notoriety of the public understanding thatMr. Lockhart was actively engaged in
conducting Blackwood’s
Magazine; the reports to which effect, though necessarily
involving serious charges against his honour and truth, he had, for a long series of time,
neglected publicly to contradict.

Mr. Scott added, in the course of the conversation, that he
thought Mr. Lockhartought to
have been on the spot when he directed a demand of the present nature to be made; for, in such
matters, delay was not becoming; and it was peculiarly desirable to have an explicit answer, on
the instant, to any inquiry deemed, by either of the parties, essential to the acknowledgment
of the other in the capacity of a gentleman.

Mr. Lockhart’s friend expressed a decided
difference of opinion from Mr. Scott on both these
points,—and pressed for a reply to Mr.
Lockhart’s question. Mr. Scott said he did not feel,
at that moment, that Mr. Lockhart had entitled himself to receive one; but
that he would reconsider the point, and give his decision in the course of the evening.

And, secondly, such open reference to the ground
of complaint, as, by rendering Mr. Lockhart
responsible in honour for the justice of his pretensions to having been injured,
could alone entitle him to expect an irregular concession of information ending to
his advantage.

Mr. Christie not having felt himself
competent to establish such a claim to the voluntary communication he required,
Mr. Scott declines to make any further
allusion to the London
Magazine on Mr.
Lockhart’s call.—Mr. Scott cannot
but feel astonishment at Mr. Lockhart’s founding an
application of the nature of the one made through Mr.
Christie, with expressed reference to three
articles, two of which have been more than a month before the
public;—and it is calculated to increase his surprise, that
Mr. Lockhart should have authorized so direct a demand to
he made on Mr. Scott, Mr. Lockhart
himself remaining at a distance which would under further and considerable delay
inevitable.

The very extraordinary fact of Mr.
Lockhart’s having permitted the second, and severest, article of the three
that have appeared in the

3

London Magazine, in which
his name is, either directly, or by implication, concerned, to remain before the public, and to
be noised about in his ears in Scotland, for a full month, without making a demand, either on
Mr. Scott, or any other person, in regard to
it,—struck Mr. Scott’s mind very forcibly, after the second
visit of Mr. Lockhart’s friend. It appeared to
throw still further suspicion on the application; and, with other circumstances, induced
Mr. Scott to determine, that he would have most distinct reason to
know in which of two capacities Mr. Lockhart ought to be
regarded—whether as a gentleman, assailed in his honourable
feelings by an indecent use of his name in print; or as a professional
scandal-monger, who had long profited by fraudulent and cowardly concealment; and who
was only now driven to a measure of tardy hardihood, by being suddenly confronted with entire
exposure,and hearing each day, and at every corner, the voice of scorn and indignation becoming
louder and louder as his silence and discomfiture became more and more confirmed.

On Thursday, the 18th, Mr. Lockhart’s
friend again called on Mr. Scott, and
delivered to him a letter from Mr. Lockhart, dated in
London. This letter, which, by the desire of the gentleman who brought it, was returned to him
when read, contained a demand of an apology for the matter affecting Mr.
Lockhart’s feelings and character, which had appeared in the London Magazine,—with
an allusion to the other alternative.

Mr. Scott, immediately on reading this letter, declared,
that, since Mr. Lockhart was now in London, he (Mr. S.)
distinctly avowed himself to be the Editor of the London Magazine; and, as Editor, responsible for the
articles it contained. Mr. Scott added, that, as he had thus frankly met
an inquiry, put to him on the sole authority of public report, he expected that Mr.
Lockhart would acknowledge public report to be a sufficient ground for
questioning him, as to his concern with the management of Blackwood’s Magazine; more particularly as the
justice of Mr. Lockhart’s pretension to having been unfairly treated
by Mr. Scott, altogether depended on the real state of his (Mr.
L.’s) connexion with the work just-named. Mr. Scott did not scruple
to decide, that, should it now appear, either by Mr. Lockhart’s
silence, or his acknowledgment, that he had been actively and secretly engaged, as a paid
writer, in a long-continued series of anonymous outrages on truth and character, evidently
projected under sordid motives, and carried into effect under evasion, denial, and
artifice,—Mr. Scott could not accept Mr.
Lockhart’s tardy personal appeal, as entitling him to a privilege, which
belongs, of right, only to the gentleman whose actions, whether they are just or otherwise, are
openly committed in his own name, and palpably in his own person.

charges which had appeared in the London Magazine, so far as
they affected Mr. Lockhart, were, in nine points out of ten,
untrue: maintained that Mr. Lockhart’s character, as a gentleman,
was unimpeachable;—but did not specify any particular instances of the incorrectness of
what had been published in the London
Magazine. With reference to the delay in preferring the complaint, this
gentleman said he understood, that Mr. Lockhart had
not seen the second article, until three weeks after its publication; and also, that
he regarded the third article as still more objectionable than the second. He concluded by
declaring that Mr. Lockhart would make no preliminary explanation
whatever, and demanded of Mr. Scott to name his friend.

In reply to the demand of naming a friend, Mr.
Scott declined doing so, until Mr. Lockhart
should have made the necessary previous explanation;—and the gentleman, on receiving this
refusal, expressed his dissatisfaction, and retired.

In the course of the same evening, Mr. Scott,
to prevent the possibility of misconception, in regard to what had taken place in conversation,
between himself and Mr. Lockhart’s friend, drew
up, in writing, a memorandum of his sentiments, which was conveyed to the latter gentleman,
very early the following morning. It is only necessary here, after what has already been said,
to give the concluding paragraph of this paper.

If Mr. Lockhart will even
now make a disavowal of having been concerned in the system of imposition and scandal
adopted in Blackwood’s
Magazine, Mr. Scott consents to
recognize his demand made through Mr. Christie; and
in that case, and that only, Mr. Christie is referred to Mr. Horatio Smith, No. 29, Throgmorton-street, as
Mr. Scott’s friend, empowered by him (Mr.
Scott) to arrange what may be proper under such circumstances.

What occurred in consequence of this communication will best be explained by the
following letter, which Mr. Scott received from Mr. Smith on the subject.

As I cannot see you this afternoon, I think it right to
let you know that Mr. Christie called upon
me before I left the City, and showed me the whole correspondence—between
you, Mr. Lockhart, and himself. After perusing
it, I asked him whether Mr. Lockhart had complied with the
preliminary upon which my interference was conditional, as stipulated in your last
memorandum; and, upon finding that he had not, I said I conceived Mr.
Christie’s call was irregular and that I was not bound, as
matters then stood, to listen to any propositions, or make them.—If
Mr. Lockhart could make the avowal required, I repeatedly told Mr. Christie that I was
authorized by you to offer him satisfaction, and I expressed
my entire concurrence in the sentiments of your last
communication.

Mr. Christie admitted, that as my
interference was made dependant upon a condition not performed, it was irregular to
call upon me; and we subsequently fell

Horace Smith to John Scott, 19 January 1821

5

into a long
conversation, which I will detail to you, as correctly as I can, when we
meet.—We differed in our views of the conduct which you were bound to adopt;
and Mr. Christie left me with an intimation that you were to
take the consequences of your resolution.

On Saturday morning Mr. Scott received the
following note from Mr. Lockhart (written on Friday),
transmitted through his friend.

London, January 19.

Mr. Lockhart, without admitting that Mr. Scott has, according to the usual practice of
gentlemen in similar situations, any right to a preliminary explanation, does
nevertheless not hesitate to offer Mr. Scott any explanation
upon any subject in which Mr. Scott’s personal feelings
and honour can be concerned; in the hopes, and on the understanding, that
Mr. Scott will then no longer delay giving Mr.
Lockhart the explanation and satisfaction alluded to in
Mr. Scott’s communications.

Mr. Scott does not think it necessary to discuss
Mr. Lockhart’s denial of his right to
a preliminary explanation:—it is sufficient for Mr.
Scott to have made up his mind on that point; to have his opinion
supported by that of his friend—a man of unblemished honour; and to be
prepared to stand the test of the feelings of society upon it.

It is, however, his wish to limit the explanation
he demands, within the narrowest bounds the case will possibly admit of:—he
will not therefore require of Mr. Lockhart any
avowal or disavowal directed towards particular articles that may have appeared in
Blackwood’s
Magazine;—all he requires is—that Mr.
Lockhart should declare, upon his honour, in explicit terms, that he
has never derived money from any connection, direct or indirect, with the management of that work; and that he has never stood in a
situation giving him, directly or indirectly, a pecuniary
interest in its sale.

Mr. Lockhart will see that the terms of this
disavowal have no reference whatever to occasional or even frequent
contributions,—which Mr. Scott waives his
right to inquire into.—They are simply intended to draw the line of
distinction between the dealer in scandal, and the man of honour.

The system of concealment and evasion adopted in
regard to the Editorship of Blackwood’s Magazine—and
obstinately maintained under calls as direct as that which Mr. Lockhart has now made on Mr.
Scott—but which Mr. Scott could not bring
himself to imitate;—also, Mr. Lockhart’s silence
under the general public report, attributing to him a principal share in the
getting-up of that work, are sufficient to justify Mr. Scott
in demanding this preliminary explanation. The disavowal required by Mr.
Scott being made,—he holds himself prepared to give
Mr. Lockhart satisfaction without delay.

Saturday Morning.

Mr. Scott was not able to refer to his friend, Mr. Smith, before dispatching the above; and, as the result of
the latter gentleman’s conversation with Mr. Lockhart’s
friend had been totally unsatisfactory, Mr. Scott (it being
now pretty late on Saturday) could not certainly cal-

6

culate on being able to
command Mr. Smith’s attendance so promptly as it would have been
desirable to have had the affair terminated, in the event of Mr.
Lockhart’s feeling himself in a situation to make the declaration demanded
by Mr. Scott. Besides, Mr. Scott had some reason to
doubt whether Mr. Smith would sanction the latitude left to Mr.
Lockhart in Mr. Scott’s last note; and therefore
Mr. Scott, while he sent off to Mr. Smith (then
in the country) an intimation of what he had done, deemed it necessary to prepare himself
provisionally with the services of another friend, in case Mr.
Lockhart’s reply should be of a nature permitting a meeting. Mr.
Scott, therefore, applied to his friend Mr. P. G.
Patmore, who, with infinite liberality, instantly consented to engage in the
affair, kindly overlooking the lateness of the application made to him. Mr.
Scott received the following note from this gentleman.

Dear Scott,

In reply to your provisional request for my services in
your affair with Mr. Lockhart, I have no
hesitation in saying, that you may command them wherever they can be of use to you.

I am glad to find that you had placed the affair
in the hands of a gentleman of such unquestioned honour as your friend Mr. Horatio Smith:—but if, consistently with
his already expressed opinion on the subject in question, that gentleman should
object to sanction the proposal which you have now, in his (Mr.
Smith’s) absence, made to Mr.
Lockhart, I repeat you may command my services: for I decidedly
think, that, if Mr. Lockhart is prepared to make the disavowal
which you have required of him, you are bound to give him the satisfaction which he
demands.

As, in case Mr.
Lockhart should think it right to make the required disavowal, my
part in this affair will be confined to arrangements, about which there can be
little or no discussion, it is perhaps unnecessary for me to express any opinion as
to what has hitherto passed: but still it may not be improper for me to add, that I
fully recognize the fairness of your preliminary stipulation.

Within the time limited by Mr. Scott for
receiving Mr. Lockhart’s final reply, he was waited
upon by Mr. Lockhart’s friend. That gentleman, not
finding Mr. Smith present, wished to consider for a
moment whether he ought to communicate to Mr. Scott, in his friend’s
absence, Mr. Lockhart’s answer, which he then held in his hand.
Mr. Scott stated the circumstances that had prevented him from
securing the immediate attendance of Mr. Smith; and added, that if
Mr. Lockhart was now prepared to make the explanation required,
Mr. Scott would engage to produce Mr. Smith in
two hours to settle the very few arrangements which would then remain to he adjusted, or, in
his absence, another friend, equally unexceptionable, for the same purpose. The gentleman
declared that Mr. Lockhart had not acceded to Mr.
Scott’s demand; that he did not think Mr. Scott had
any title to make such a demand, that he objected to the way in which it was worded, and
refused on the point of right. Mr. Scott then declared, that he con-

7

sidered his communications with Mr. Lockhart as
terminated. Mr. Lockhart’s friend expressed a strong desire that
Mr. Scott should hear one passage read of Mr.
Lockhart’s communication: this, after some discussion, and explanation, as
to the language in which that desire had been expressed,—Mr. Scott,
conceiving the passage might bear upon the point in dispute, consented to do: on hearing,
however, a few words, it appeared to him to be altogether irrelevant to that point, and
Mr. Scott therefore begged that the discussion might he considered as
peremptorily closed by him.

Mr. Scott, in the course of the same evening, received a
note from Mr. Lockhart, which he opened (not knowing the
seal), and found it to contain abusive epithets. These, as Mr. Scott had,
throughout the whole of the affair, consulted, not the first impulses of his feelings, but the
principles of justice and honour, believed by himself, and two gentlemen of unsullied
character, to be applicable to the case, as it stood between Mr. Lockhart
and him, could not, of course, be considered as in any way altering the position of the matter.

Mr. Scott regards the abuse in question as coming from a
person concerned in conductingBlackwood’s Magazine:—a mercenary dealer in
calumny and falsehood; who, by a series of pitiful artifices and evasions, has skulked from the
consequences of his own actions, until he has been dragged forth to infamy by a powerful
hand:—who even then, finding himself beaten, and exposed without hope, as a calumnious
writer, still lay inactive for a considerable space of time; and who, at last, has been driven,
solely by the encreasing torment of an intolerable situation, to make a desperate and tardy
attempt to recover himself,—by claiming a privilege which is only due to that quick and
fine sense of honour, which would shudder at wearing a vizor, and still more at using poisoned
weapons from under its protection—which has nothing to weigh or balance, on receiving a
wound, but the promptest and most candid manner of demanding reparation.

Little or nothing of argument being mixed-up with the above narrative, the
Editor of the London
Magazine wishes to add a few words, in his public capacity, in support of the
principle on which he has acted, in his treatment of Mr.
Lockhart’s claim.

The right which a gentleman has to demand satisfaction for injury done to his
feelings, or reputation, must be considered strictly dependent on his standing frankly, in his
proper person, ready to answer for such of his own actions as affect the feelings or reputation
of others.

An anonymous agent, in conducting a work devoted to criticism and satire, who
earns money by his labours in this capacity, and who, by studied and artful devices, and
pretensions, conceals himself from the knowledge of the persons that are, from time to time,
subjected to his remarks, cannot be regarded as occupying such a place in society, as would
entitle him to the right above-mentioned.

8

The public report, representing Mr. Lockhart
to be actively and constantly engaged, for hire, or salary, or pecuniary profit of some sort,
in the management of Blackwood’s Magazine, is sufficiently general and notorious to
warrant his being called upon to avow or deny the fact, by any one to whom he may prefer an
application for the privilege of receiving gentlemanly satisfaction.

The Editor of the London Magazine has given himself a peculiar title to make this demand, by
his prompt acknowledgement of the situation in which he stands towards
the publication in which the articles, complained of by Mr.
Lockhart, have appeared; and by admitting his personal responsibility as Editor,
and his liability to he called upon to give satisfaction for injuries committed by him in his
public capacity.

It cannot be permitted to a person, who has taken advantage of concealment in
making attacks on feeling and character, so long as concealment could be continued by evasion
and denial, suddenly to turn necessity into a virtue, when he has been forcibly, and against
his will, drawn forth into exposure.

Nor can it be permitted to any one to time, so as to suit his convenience, the
avowal of his own actions, affecting the interests or feelings of his neighbours.

For these reasons, a gentleman’s privilege could not have been conceded to
Mr. Lockhart had he avowed, on the present occasion,
that he was engaged in conducting Blackwood’s Magazine—for this avowal has been evaded by him,
when, if such be really his situation, it was due from him to injured and inquiring parties.

Nothing, therefore, but Mr. Lockhart’s
disavowal of the connection in question, could have been considered as establishing his title
to the privilege he claimed. If he had made it, on his word of honour, he would have received
the satisfaction he desired. His pretension of being withheld by pride and delicacy from
denying what there was no ground for charging him with, is calculated to excite contempt;
preferred, as it is, in the race of a long-standing public report, and the conviction of
thousands in Edinburgh and elsewhere. If, in fine, he is unable to make the disavowal required,
his attempt now to play the part of a gentleman touched in the point of honour, because the
press, which he has abused as an instrument of injury, has been at length turned against him as
one of justice, must be considered to be quite as impudent as it is desperate. The interests of
society demand, that such an attempt should be firmly repelled. It is proper that the
individual who sits down to write or plan outrages on private feeling and character, with the
chances of concealment in his favour, and the profits which fraud and hypocrisy are calculated
to ensure in this world, tempting his cupidity, should be aware, that he runs some risk in
return for these advantages—the risk of being repulsed with indignant scorn, should his
complete exposure as knave, leave him no other resource but that of claiming, with affected
brevity, to receive satisfaction as a man of honour!

Jonathan Henry Christie (1793-1876)
Educated at Marischal College, Baliol College, Oxford, and Lincoln's Inn; after slaying
John Scott in the famous duel at Chalk Farm he was acquitted of murder and afterwards
practiced law as a conveyancer in London. He was the lifelong friend of John Gibson
Lockhart and an acquaintance of John Keats.

John Gibson Lockhart (1794-1854)
Editor of the Quarterly Review (1825-1853); son-in-law of Walter
Scott and author of the Life of Scott 5 vols (1838).

Peter George Patmore [Tims] (1786-1855)
English writer and friend of Charles Lamb and Leigh Hunt; an early contributor to Blackwood's, he was John Scott's second in the fatal duel, editor of
the Court Journal, and father of the poet Coventry Patmore.

John Scott (1784-1821)
After Marischal College he worked as a journalist with Leigh Hunt, edited The Champion (1814-1817), and edited the London
Magazine (1820) until he was killed in the duel at Chalk Farm.

Horace Smith (1779-1849)
English poet and novelist; with his brother James he wrote Rejected
Addresses (1812) and Horace in London (1813). Among his
novels was Brambletye House (1826).

Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. (1817-1980). Begun as the Edinburgh Monthly Magazine, Blackwood's assumed the name of its proprietor, William Blackwood after the sixth
number. Blackwood was the nominal editor until 1834.

The London Magazine. (1820-1829). Founded by John Scott as a monthly rival to Blackwood's, the
London Magazine included among its contributors Charles Lamb, John Clare, Allan Cunningham,
Thomas De Quincey, and Thomas Hood.

close

INFORMATION FROM TEI HEADER

Source Description:

Author: Scott, John, 1784-1821

Title:Statement &c. ([London]: [Baldwin, Cradock, and Joy], [1821]).

Electronic Edition:

Series: Lord Byron and his Times: http://lordbyron.org

Encoding Description: Any dashes occurring in line breaks have been removed. Obvious and unambiguous compositors’ errors have been silently corrected.

Markup and editing by: David Hill Radcliffe

Completed December 2009

Publication Statement:

Publisher: Center for Applied Technologies in the Humanities, Virginia Tech